get_nft_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get detailed information,' which already implies a read operation, but it does not mention how invalid IDs are handled, what specific fields are returned, or any network-default behavior. This adds minimal value beyond what the verb 'Get' already conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant or vague filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with complete schema coverage, but no output schema exists, so the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes. It remains vague on return content, though for a standard NFT-info tool it is minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both nft_id and network having clear descriptions. The tool description's mention of 'by its NFT ID' adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific NFT by its NFT ID'), making the action and target unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_nfts, which list NFTs for an account, by focusing on a single NFT identified by its ID.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by its NFT ID' implies the tool is used when you have an NFT ID, but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as get_account_nfts or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than clearly defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.